Do people have an intrinsic right to health care?

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care–to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Hmph. That fucked up quote comes from an op-ed in the WSJ by the CEO of Whole Foods Inc.

Whole Foods is now trying to pretend this little missive was never penned, and are backpaddling like kayakers upstream from Niagara Falls.

I’ve met lots of folks from the UK who are quite proud of their “welfare state”. It is a great accomplishment after all.

Here in the US, “welfare” is a derogatory term… how fucked up is that?

This particular quote may be out of context, but there are many people (especially “successful” people) who believe in a messed up form of predestination. They are successful, so they are better and deserve to get whatever they want at the expense of whoever.

Factoid of the day…
Adam Smith rightly feared that oligarchs and aristocracy would capture and destroy a market based system. Socialism can happily live along side capitalism, aristocracy can’t.

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

@Russell: Our Declaration of Independence states that “that they [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Now whether or not you agree with the notion of rights derived from a creator, the important point was that it established that people do not serve the government. Rather, the purpose of government is to secure these rights for people. Has that principle almost completely been subsumed as the government becomes more important than the people who formed it.

While phrased this way it may come across badly, there is a serious point that is relevant: We don’t have the resources to give everyone perfect health-care. We need somehow to make decisions in that regard.

There’s the old related hypothetical which helps make the point is that if we had a billion dollar pill that adds a year to someone’s life we wouldn’t give that pill to everyone.

No matter what happens we need to make a decision about how much health care everyone gets. While there may be some minimal standard that everyone has a right to, just where to draw that line is not an easy decision.

John Mackey is being an idiot because he confuses having to draw this line somewhere with saying no such line exists. His position is also of course much easier for him to take than for someone who doesn’t have health care.

Dan, with all due respect to Thomas Jefferson, natural rights philosophy is nonsense on stilts. The important issue of government serving the people remains. But the rational framework for thinking about that is more Rawls than Locke.

“In the rest of the industrialized world, it is assumed that the more equally and widely the burdens of illness are shared, the better off the population as a whole is likely to be. The reason the United States has forty-five million people without coverage is that its health-care policy is in the hands of people who disagree, and who regard health insurance not as the solution but as the problem.”

That’s right – if someone is sick and has no money, tough shit, they deserve to die. If someone doesn’t have money they can sleep with the pigeons along Lakeshore Drive. If they don’t have enough money to feed themselves they can get a job or die of starvation. Why should anyone care? Now I wonder if the people promoting that are religious; so far the most ardent supporters of being assholes seem to be religious folk.

Russell is 100% right. If we provide medical care for all, it’s because we choose to do it, not because some idiot God of Rights decreed it. Those societies that do provide care for all are intrinsically better, along that axis, than those that don’t, cultural relativity be damned; if we do it, we’re better, yay for us. Having done it, we can start to look into food and housing, too. Societies that don’t make their people starve or freeze are better than the ones that don’t. North Korea sucks.

Government is just an organ of society. Sometimes government is the most effective way to make things happen. This has been well demonstrated to be one of those times.

Going off the assumption that suffering is a bad thing is all that is needed to see that healthcare should be available to everyone on some level. Believing that the poor (including children) deserve to die due to circumstance is a monsteous point of view and I am not sure how anyone can support it. Hell half of the reason that there are so many people living on the streets is because there aren’t good resources for the mentally ill- the problem self perpetuates by putting almost anyone with an illness into the poor house automatically.

I am also puzzled about why there is even a question about this applying to food. Of course it does. People do not deserve to die horrible deaths, from famine or disease, so that the rest of us can buy non essential things for ourselves.

I don’t agree with the concept of inherent rights. However, I am happy to live in a country that has decided that letting people suffer and die because they can’t afford health care is a bad idea, just as we’ve decided that letting folk starve to death is something we don’t want in our society.

Unlike women, men do not readily discuss personal medical conditions and disorders with their friends. It is for this reason that pearly penile papules are very misunderstood.

It is not surprising that you would be plagued by worry and paranoia at the appearance of a bump on the rim of your penis. Immediately you would suspect venereal disease or even worse, cancer. The likelihood is that you do not have either, but rather a simple case of pearly penile papules. Pearly penile papules are very common among men, especially uncircumcised men. They are not as a result of bad hygiene and are not contagious in any way whatsoever. Many men actually find that they appear and disappear without any treatment at all.

However, if you are feeling uncomfortable with them, they can be effectively removed with a simple treatment of radiofrequency surgery. You should however consult your doctor and have them seen to should they emit a discharge or are physically painful.

My podcasts: : Ikonokast

Mike and Greg converse on the subject of the geology and geography of Arizona and the red rocks of Sedona. The rocks tell the story of the ages of the earth, and this is a pretty chapter. We also talk about the end of ScienceBlogs, which has been a seminal collective that set the tone …

In the podcast, you may hear Mike refer to John as a “Vulcan Historian.” What Mike meant to say is that John J. McKay is a historian with a specialty in the history of the Balkans, and that is an important distinction. He is also interested in the many weird theories that abound to explain …

We don’t do too many shows on cuisine, but this week we asked scientist and author Bill Schutt to speak with us about his research in cannibalism. His new book, Cannibalism: A perfectly natural history, explores the behavioral and evolutionary biology of cannibalism in general, and within that context, examines cannibalism among humans. Cannibalism: A …

With the election of Donald Trump and the apparent takeover of most of the US by the anti-science Republican party, we thought we should turn to Canada for inspiration and ideas. Katie Gibbs tells us about Evidence for Democracy, which runs issue-based campaigns and educational projects that support well informed, fact-based, smart policy decisions by …

Dan Fincke is a philosopher who focuses on skeptical thinking and science. We asked Dan to speak with us about the apparent, but perhaps illusory, rift between philosophy and science. By the end of the podcast, we pretty much solve that problem. Dan Fincke’s Web Site is here, where you can find out about the …

Author and science philosopher Shawn Otto returns to discuss the presumably dire situation faced by modern civilization and science in particular with the election of an explicitly anti-truth, anti-science administration in Washington. Shawn Otto was the first guest on this podcast, click here to listen to that excellent interview. The War on Science: Who’s …

We speak with climate scientist Michael Mann about his research in global warming, climate change denial, and his new book, The Madhouse Effect. Professor Mann is also the author of Dire Predictions (2nd edition), an accessible rendition of the scientific basis for climate change volume of the IPCC report, and The Hockey Stick and the …

Emily Cassidy talks with us about the conflict between feeding the world’s population and destroying the word’s environment in the process. We discuss GMOs, the Farm Bill, and agriculture, mainly in the US.

Christie Wilcox speaks to us about her new book, Venomous, and the science of venom and venomous animals. We also explore how venom and venomous creatures play a role in some rather bizarre human behaviors. What’s the difference between poisonous and venomous?

Dr Don Prothero speaks with us about geology, creationism, aliens and UFOs, bigfoot, the process of writing science books; texts as well as for popular consumption. Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future by Donald Prothero.